Making Sense of Evil (Virginia Tech Massacre)

Ample proof that conservatives and religious fanatics live in lala land.Nator's right. Fucked up, mentally ill, he did not look rational on the press release.

Good definition, Nuggin.We see what we believe to be true a the truth.When we puprposely do things that we know are evil, that is evil.

I would dare say that the fracturing of a persons psyche cannot be summarized in simple terms. I doubt there is any one thing, but rather a conglomeration of multiple problems, as one thing compounds the other. Its easy to go both ways on a subject like this. Its easy to just cast him aside and deride the man, branding him as an evil man who needs to die. At the same time, its also easy to try and coddle him, claiming that his mind was not his own and trying to shift the blame any where other than squarely on him.I think you are right to say that it is a crux, because people like Cho probably had some traumatic experiences in early life, slowly waning on him. Couple that with a genetic predisposition with acute mental illness and there is a powder keg waiting to explode. But at the same time Cho was his own man. He knew right and wrong. Its not like he was incapable of understanding his actions. We know that by his actions. His act was methodical. His every action was deliberate and planned in advance.So the way I see it, we need to understand that Cho had a personal responsibility, however, there were some extenuating circumstances in Cho's life that only exacerbated the overall problem of his final disposition. Therefore, simply calling him evil and washing our hands of him isn't the solution. Nor is turning the victimizer into the victim ever going to get us anywhere. There needs to be some balance there.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

We call it evil because we are a social species, and thus feel that something that attacks our society is not just wrong but evil. But "our society" means different things to different people. Nuggin's racist KKK illiterates don't include blacks, asians and jews in their society, so it is okay in their view to attack them. Muslim fundamentalists likewise feel justified - if not bound - to attack those that criticize their faith (the cartoon fiasco last year) because they see it as evil, an attack on their society. Christian fundamentalists have similar problems with things they see as attacks on their society. See Rob's comments on the immorality of science.What these people don't see is that their definition of society is different from those outside it, and their point of reference is different for what is acceptable social behavior and what is not.When we look at those on the fringes of society - people who are loners or have few friends - we see people who would have a fundamentally different view of what constitutes their society: there is a potential for a large "outgroup" viewpoint of people who do not fit in their society.We've already seen where social groups can justify killing whole groups of people based on their definition of society and their moral values that are based on that definition, from Nazi Holocast, to KKK lynchings to the recent spates of "genetic cleansing" around the world. Bullies are also people that pick on those that they don't consider part of their society. The only difference for those like Cho (or the unibomber?) is that their definition of their society is a much smaller group of people.If we were not such a social animal the overall viewpoint would be different - perhaps much closer to that of the loner than the social mavens. Perhaps WE are the unconventional ones? Or is this where social progress inevitably leads: including more beings within your definition of society as the level of consciousness rises.Enjoy?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Razd:I (Rob) have never said that science is immoral. I have said that science is ammoral.If you want to see a good example of the pyschological conditions exhibited by Cho, you can look no further than any person who has become angry. And yes, that includes me. Don't think I am unaware...It is the potential of every person.If the anger is fed, then the delusions and paranoia grow. It is not a matter of kind but degree. Obviously, Cho continued to ignore the voice of reason within himself and allowed his delusins to become reality to the point where action was the only way to assert Himself. The only thing stopping him was the truth. He ignored that...Everytime you and I endeavor to take action and set things right, we are (in some minor degree) doing the same thing by seing the opposition as the problem. Minority or majority has little to do with it.Anger is the enemy. And Razd... listen to me very carefully... vitriol is not something exclusive to 'fundamentalist' Christians.I am going to say this very carefully and gently. It is very often the 'homosexual community', or those who otherwise see themselves as 'finally free' (to live as they please) who exhibit some of these symptoms. And I am not singling out the homosexual community as you are doing with the 'fundamentalist label. That pretty much describes every human being.Alec Baldwin anyone...?The common denominator is anger towards another and Jesus said it is murder. The sin being essential and manifest in the heart, and not only the action. Cho had to think it first, and that was where the battle for his mind was played out. He gave into the hate, and the actions followed. A copycat here in California yeilded to reason in the end. I was actually rolling through Yuba County the next day (yesturday).It is anger and hatred within that is the enemy. What utterly disturbs me, is the attempt by Razd and others to label ('fundamentalist') and look to a scapegoat for their problems. I have never suggested such a thing. For example, you have never heard me label homosexuals as 'queers' or 'fags', and then blame my own problems or society on the condition of a few others. This issue of unholy anger, is one all men struggle with.But when someone comes along with 'righteous indignation', it is immediately trumpeted by those perceiving threat, to be under the catagory I have been describing.Perhaps that is why it was said (I think Billy Graham said it), that the problem with 'Righteous Indignation', is that it is often 10% righteous, and 90% indignation.I try as hard as I can to walk that line. And I despise myself when I do fall into the other catagory.But this bold faced attempt here by Razd, to label every solicitation for clear thought, and every sharp rebuke, as the Son of the demonic activity at work in each of us, is itself, the essence of bigotry and elitism.Let's all calm down here...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

By that reasoning God's actions are frequently immoral in the Bible. Genesis, Exodus, Job - lots of places God either directly, or through an agent, causes the deaths of others.

Yes, this is true. Keep in mind, however, that many of the actions attributed to God may have been interpretations by the human authors. IOW, God may not have ordered the deaths at all....it may have just been the authors interpretation of what God wanted done.ANYWAY...Getting Back On Topic:I fear that Cho will become a Martyr type of figure for many disenchanted youth...particularly of the Third World. His image is that of a Third World ethnicity declaring "war" on the United States indirectly at a technical college. Its not just a troubled mental patient in a local setting....its the whole idea that Capitalism and Imperialism needs to be brought down.These ideas are dangerous to our way of life! Its not our fault that we live in a Capitalist Republic with Imperial ambitions....Cho said that there were a hundred billion reasons....I assume he is referring to U.S. Dollar amounts being spent on war...I dunno.

Huh?Say what?If it is not our fault then just whose fault do you think it is?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Im just saying that Cho portrayed a Westernized Martyr complex. His diatribe was directed against Americans who "could have stopped him". I am saying that its not our fault for whatever ills our system has done to his tortured mind, nor for the protests of many imitators throughout the world.

Why not?If it is "our system" is it not "our responsibility?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There comes a time when "it isn't my fault" isn't enough.If we didn't cause the problem, did we do enough to prevent it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sorry, but this statement is false.Dictionary.com would define it as such:1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
-noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.
-adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
”IdiomWhile you may not agree with a personification of evil, the word does mean something. I understood an agreement with some of those definitions in the next line of your post.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

That first line doesn't sit well with me. Cho did some horrible things, but no matter how absurd or implicitly violent an idea may be, to label it as a threat to 'our (who's this refer to, anyway?)' way of life sounds a lot like what Senator Mcarthy said. The greatness of this country means we have the right to speak as we will and believe whatever we want to belive (and own a gun, but that's another debate).But don't get me wrong--you, in turn, may believe something is dangerous all you like, and even say so. I guess I jumped the gun, but the whole 'these ideas are dangerous' thing kinda scared me.

If something is amoral there are no moral ramifications one way or the other - by definition. You did just single them out - you just asserted that they exhibit {anger? vitriol?} and implied that it was due to their (immoral by implication) life-style and you gave no other examples. I call that singling out.Conversely what I said was: Can you tell me where christian fundamentalists were singled out? By what twisted logic do you get from a general discussion of morality based on different definitions of society - and how that affects people like cho - to an attempt to make fundamentalism the scapegoat here?What I see here is just exactly what I was talking about - the propensity of people to be disturbed by what they see as attacks on their definition of society. Disturbed, angry, and reacting to such perceived attacks with an attack of their own. Q.E.D.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

*sigh*
i mean that it doesn't actually mean anything outside of the definitions we have given it. clearly the word has a definition. i do recall saying such. but it doesn't actually, really mean anything different than "bad" or "wrong" or "mean" or "reprehensible". it does not inherently invoke the supernatural and to use it to mean such is irresponsible and really not helpful to solving any kind of problem.when you feel like moving past the painfully obvious, give me a call.